Posted
by
timothy
on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:48AM
from the not-being-forthcoming-huh dept.

uninet writes "The SCO Group, Inc. today released a statement concerning the lawsuit filed against it yesterday by Red Hat, Inc. The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion."
Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: 'SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond. We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group -- and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.'" Read on for a few more links.

Vladimir writes "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007, by which time Linux or any other OS may be irrelevant. People please keep your wallets in your pocket. Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."

Besides which, Omega writes "VNUnet has a story on how the economic analysis firm The Butler Group predicts that even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced."

Its also common practice to counter*(see below)sue someone for libal and slander. Not to mention trying to extort your customer with vage threats of possible lawsuits and other reprocussions in the future.

Especially WITH NO PROOF WHAT-SO-EVER.

What if Ford motor company went to all the people who bought GM products and said to them, "Chevy, Pontiac and freinds stole technology from us, I am not going to tell you what they stole and how they stole it, but you should know that many of the people who designed for GM have also worked for other companies who make cars, including Ford. If you don't pay us 3000 dollars for every GM car you own within 3 months then I may have the government put you in jail, or mske you pay a big fine on top of what you owe us for using GM products."

I doubt that would go on long with out some serious reprocussions.

*And don't forget that SCO hasn't SUED REDHAT AT ALL. This is not a counter-suit. SCO has sued IBM, which sells Redhat products along with some of it's servers, but that doesn't have much bearing on the lawsuite at all. SCO allegesthat IBM put some code from AIX into Linux, during IBM's development of it's contribution to Linux's code base; thus "devalueing Unix".

The rest is a bunch a propaganda BS that SCO is using in a attempt to frighten unwitting people into giving them free money. SCO's version of UNIX is inferiorer in pretty much everyway, not only to Linux, but NetBSD, FreeBSD, and in some aspects to OpenBSD, PLUS ALL the commercial versions on Unix such as AIX or Solaras.

SCO is screwed even if they win the lawsuit. It's a company with no future and open source deployment and support was their best bet for survival, however limited, and they flushed that down the f*king drain.

This lawsuit is just a chance for them to get the company recognized as a unix provider so that their stock market "value" goes up and give the to p execs a chance to unload their stocks with as little as a loss as possible before their investors realise that they are banking on a loser and pull out, which I would think would be around... ahhh sometime between 2005 and 2006?

I am just happy to see a lawsuit that is not frivolus comming out of the american justice system.

Who has the most to gain from SCO winning this lawsuit? Certainly not SCO, because they arent going to get money from Linux development. Not microsoft, because linux will not die.

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Sun.

Think about it. If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product. SCO is not only a bad product, but they've sucessfully put the last nail in their own coffin with this lawsuit. They pissed off the majority of the industry.

Microsoft wouldnt take the market, because all the applications and development are designed around linux/unix environments.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Sun is doing, but they're probably waiting with baited breath to see the outcome of this.

If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product.

I don't think so. Solaris is a little more expensive than what most Linux users are used to paying. You really can't think of any other free, UNIX-like operating systems with a proven technical track record? I'll give you a hint - their names end in BSD.

Sure Sun may be the most viable commercial product, but I think you'd see the *BSDs picking up a lot more users than Solaris would.

Of course, the truth is that most Linux users would probably just continue to do so. So they have to download it from offshore - big deal. It's not like the BSA could touch them (no filthy EULA to empower them). They'd have to be tracked down and prosecuted by regular law enforcement for copyright violation. Good luck with that one, SCO.

I doubt you realize how much engineering effort Solaris represents. It's internals are actually *thought out* fairly well. The kernel is much more robust in terms of high load and availability than the Linux one (try it, see for yourself).

Dumping it would be 'bad' by any measure. The best thing that I'd personally like to see happen is them merging Solaris and Linux.

Linux has a lot of quick & dirty hacks, it supports a ton of consumer hardware, etc., solaris is more of a stable-well-thought-out OS, that lacks some of that 'agility' that Linux has.

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Sun.

My opinion is (and, hey, I post on Slashdot so I've gotta have an opinion) it isn't about SCO or Unix at all. It's about some opportunist executives sucking the last life out of a dying company.

I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy SCO, exercise their stock options, open their golden parachutes and bail out.

When that plan failed, their backup plan was to pump-up their stock prices using exaggerated claims about the value of their Unix intellectual property rights while quietly exercising their stock options and selling off their stock in the background (I hope the SEC is looking into this).

I think that as soon as they've sold off all of their personally held stock, the executives will open their golden parachutes together and bail out and SCO (and their lawsuit) will die shortly thereafter.

Oh, wait, you are! Either directly if you buy Red Hat (or Suse now too) products, or indirectly if you just like to use OS software, since that "lawyer money" could have been better spent on software development.

It's all part of the same OS community, working under GPL. Any (GPL) code developed by Red Hat is available to Debian and Slackware users / developers as well. I mean, that's (part of) the idea behind OS software. For example, I believe Debian package format was developed after RPM. I bet having first version of RPM to look at and seeing how it worked in practice made developing new package formats much easier, and made them better.

In closed source, a competitor not developing software often helps you. In open source it usually hurts you too.

So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.

I think you missed the point. RedHat spends a lot of money on things like kernel development. If they are spending more money on lawyers, that money can't be spent on kernel development. That hurts debian and slackware too.

While I hate to see ANYONE having to spend money on lawyers to defend Linux, I think that it's money well spent in this case. Hopefully it results in a financial penalty in damages as well as just stops SCO's behavior. After all, RedHat loses money when people are scared off Linux.

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia. If SCO is yet to prove it's case, why is it possible for it to keep yelling everyday? The US justice system is too free, maybe

Bear in mind that after Red Hat's announcement, SCO's stock dropped 20%, in a matter of minutes. Methinks investers are starting to think SCO doesn't have much of a [case|brain] (delete as appropriate), either.

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

The worst part (for American citizens, that is) of all the senility of US justice system is that, on the long run, who wants to innovate, or even work? Become a professional suer and you'll be well-done for the rest of your life. Be a Canopy Group-like and you'll be rewarded on the casinos known

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

Well, the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to get involved. An SEC investigation would cast a little FUD right back at SCO, though it would be much more truthful than the crap SCO's spreading around.

Think about it this way: What's easier to get on prime-time television, a scene of a woman getting punched or a scene of a woman bearing her breasts? A scene of full-penetration sex or a scene where someone dies violently?

Which is our culture more afraid of - sex or violence? Feeling good or making others feel bad?

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe SCO did not defend itself in Europe or Australia so the courts there issued summary judgement.

Why didn't SCO defend itself? Because in thier estimate of the situation, the concluded that the outcome wasn't going to affect thier stock price back in the US. Had they defended themselves, it would have taken months to get an injunction in Germany just like it's taking months in the US.

So, this is not "an insult on the US justice system" so much as it is an insite into the strategy of SCO. This is just more evidence that they are doing a pump and dump.

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...

They don't have any legal claim for licensing revenues now. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a customer is not liable. If the NY Times prints a chapter from Harry Potter and gets sued for doing so, the people who have subscriptions to the NYT can't also be sued and forced to pay for the book. It doesn't work that way.

"Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse"

Is there a legal basis for this? I do not doubt for a minute that any infringing code could be rewritten quickly, but why would an otherwise legitamite SCO case collapse?
As an analogy, my neighbor breaks into my house and infringes upon (steals) my tv, I sue him and he says "ok I'll put it back". It seems to me that he is still guilty of a crime.

That's an improper analogy. If the code can be replaced in 4 hours, then the court will see that the code was not valuable or important and was most likely included by accident. Then, SCO won't be eligible for punitive damages. Remember: intent is very important here.

Here's a closer analogy. You borrow a pen from a co-worker. You forget to return said pen. Co-worker accuses you of theft, but refuses to say what you have stolen. I don't think the case would get very far, given that a pen hardly costs anything, the theft wasn't intentional, and you would likely return the pen had he asked.

Copyright does not create a thing, per se, like a television. When you copy and distribute something without the Copyright holder's permission, you're not commiting an act of theft, but one of infringement- you're taking away the right of the holder to control production and distribution of the IP in question. It's the way the law is worded and there's a good reason for it as IP isn't really property- when you infringe, you don't take away the idea; when you steal, you take away the object and it's use fr

Because the original case is not about the code itself, but about IBM allegedly infringing on the licensing conditions for AIX. SCO states that with IBM releasing code to the Linux kernel which was written for AIX and thus covered by the Unix license, IBM infringed on the contract.

SCO states that IBM had to protect not only the licensed source code but also the code IBM wrote to make a derivative work from the source code.

Yes that was the original case. But SCO changes its story so often. If it's related to Linux, Unix, IBM, or any other company that might someday appear as a blip on SCO's radar, they have accused them of something. You don't send out 1500 letters to people who have done no dealings with IBM saying that they are infringing on SCOs IP due to a contract dispute.

If it was only the original case, Red Hat wouldn't be bringing suit. SCO is also contacting customers of Red Hat (as well as other Linux versions), warning them that they're liable for copyright infringement or violation of trade secrets, and offering to sell them a license. That's why Red Hat is suing.

> What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about.> If it's in the kernel everyone can already see> it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Maybe they're afraid. I bet that only days after they show us the source there will be a clean version of the Linux kernel, perhaps with a few features disabled. In any case, it'll only take a short time to get a clean kernel. And then they can't force anyone into paying them...Isn't open source great ?:-)

'Cos SCO is interested in extortion, not reasoning.'Cos the justice system is such that anyone can throw shit and ask others to clean up the mess.'Cos firms are no longer interested in delivering products and services, but in making money and enriching a few directors.'Cos, maybe there isn't much truth in what SCO's trying to have us believe.

Very simple. As soon as SCO tells the world exactly what pieces of code in the linux kernel they are claiming ownership of, they will be removed and re-written by an army of open of open source developers. SCO immediately loses ownership as soon as it tells people what it claims to own.It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat, except that even if it's alive when it comes out of the box, we immediately kill it anyway.

Well I've been thinking alot about this, and I think it's funny that they give a blanket statement about it being in the 2.4 - 2.5 (now 2.6). If its in every 2.4 kernel, then it would had to have shown up in the 2.3 development cycle. Parts of the kernel dont magically appear at the beginning of a new production/stable cycle.But telling us the exact release number would infringe on their IP, and we couldnt have that.

Darl, you need to put up, and then shut up when we've removed it from the kernel.

The reason is that The SCO Group want to extort money from people and also drive up their share price. Note that a lot of the upper crust in there have been dumping their shares already, so at least they think the farce is nearly over. The share price [yahoo.com] has stopped rising for now, and even took a big hit on Monday ($13 -> $11 in two hours).

Linus replacing the code would not have any impact on TSG's damages claim, even if they had one.

Let's make a stupid presumption and say that TSG's code claims are all 100% straight-up correct. Because they have not showed the code, the people they are threatening to sue cannot determine whether they are using it or not. The law requires them to be able to. This has axed any and all damages claims that TSG may have had. TSG is able to claim zero dollars in damages right now because they've massively contributed to the damage by their own acts.

It would also take a very unreasonable judge to disallow you time to bring your systems into compliance, and as you said, Linus and his troops would replace it so fast that TSG wouldn't even have time to print out the legal documents requiring them to stop using UnixWare-derived code, let alone serve those papers. Some of the bits would head out over the wire only half-compressed.

A Pyrric victory indeed for TSG. So instead they try extortion - and I think the wheels are about to come off that caper as well.

Point #2 is significant in this case; any IP infringement I have seen in the past has been prefixed with a cease and desist letter. No evidence has been presented, this is a clear-cut case of FUD on the part of SCO.

Don't forget, SCO is also under SEC investigation for financial misdoings. "The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters' conduct during the Company's [SCO's] initial public offe

I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word). I should sent an email instead. Others have tried that weeks ago and got no reaction up to now. The company doing the press releases for SCO Germany informed me that they are not allowed to comment on the licence in any way, too.

It looks like there is absolutly no chance to buy the SCO licence for Linux in Germany at the moment.

What, just like SCO were when they decided to distribute a Linux distro, including code that said "Please use me", and then get all of their revenue by suing people for doing so?

Remind me, what SEC filing that that plan appear on? Because it seems to me like "Abandon development and marketing of obselete product, make all of our money from barratry" would be the sort of thing that investors would like to know about beforehand.

I assume Mandrake, Connectiva etc. will also announce support for Red Hats actions. But this could be a cool idea. Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO? SCO will run out of money before it can address any of them. Of course then MS may buy it out and then we could have a REAL problem on our hands...What i am interested in finding out is if any of the companies will put their money where their mouth is... donate to the Open Source Now! fund.

I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."

I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.

I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.

Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD.

And from the page:

"The jerkheads at SCO refuse to disclose what their IP is choosing instead to only make general and ambiguous public and inflammatory claims about others. Without proof, of course. Even without substance."

I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever;)

It's becoming clear that SCO is a rather deliberate-placed fly in the soothing low cost ointment of growing Linux deployments.

It's also clear that certain companies stand to benefit from slowing the rate of Linux adoption. It's in their interest to keep the question raised by SCO open for as long as possible because it will retard the growth rate of Linux. (I doubt the number of Linux deployments will decrease, or even level off, but the growth rate will probably slow.)

So how long will it take for the SCO issue to be closed?

Most current Linux users have dismissed SCO's claims as frivolous, but potential new users are probably more easily dissuaded by these kinds of questions.

What kind of legal event and how long will it take before SCO claims are no longer a question?

according to this eweek [eweek.com] story, sun believes it SCO can screw off:

In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.

"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.

Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics. Since SCO's version of Linux probably contains some code that was generated by these companies or their employees, they can "sell" licenses to use their code before they sue SCO for violating the GPL. That way, the end user won't be held "liable".:) No more SCO linux users.

It doesn't have to be a valid threat to scare management into submission. I think more tech companies need to put insurance agents into upper management positions. Nothing intimidates those guys!

Clearly SCO is not hopeful that it will win the lawsuit against IBM - if it were, it wouldn't care about how many "SCO Linux licensees" are out there, and it wouldn't be trying to collect hundreds or thousands of dollars from them.

Just think: If SCO thought it could win the IBM suit, SCO would be very successful financially. SCO could then take that financial success and license their technology in terms that are legally clear to their customers.

Instead, they're trying to force organizations to be their customers by threatening them with potential lawsuits. And unclear lawsuits at that.

SCO is merely looking for extremely high visibility in the short term - negative visibility which can damage it's ability to be a product OR IP property. Basically, they're pissing off potential customers of their technology (no matter WHO they license it to).

SCO is looking for some short term cash with this deal, likely because all other forms of cashflow have stopped or in the process of stopping. Again, they can only bite the hand that COULD feed it, as at this point they have no product of any value except the threat of lawsuits (which isn't really considered a product).

Noi matter how much nice companies like Red Hat and SuSe help the effort, the damage to Linux's (considered in some circles) bad reputation, has been done.

Joe "Unix? Wha?" Average already is wearing his microsoft distributed OSS protected sun glasses, and will only see the bad PR from SCO.

It just sucks that now for every bad vibe that SCO has sent out regarding linux, it means we have to send out ten good vibes. So grab your friendly joe Avergae and explain to them what SCO really repreasents, just try not be too fanatical, people get wierded out by that.

does the timing of all of this strike anyone else as intentional? that just when microsoft was starting to lose server interest share to linux at an ever-increasing rate a plague descends upon linux. does it further seem coincidental that microsoft has announced a number of open source/linux initiatives recently?

i think there are several things going on here, but they all originate from strategic, and not tactical, decisions by redmond. let me start with a comment i heard from a coworker (he's in technical sales), "if anyone can figure out how to make money out of linux, its microsoft."

one: microsoft has recently started to be perceived in the marketplace as stodgy. no, i don't have any business case studies to back it up; i feel it. so they're attempting to tell the world that they can change with the times like the best of them. how? by announcing open source initiatives, etc.

two: despite microsofts continued rants about TCO, business' experience probably show that linux TCO, especially in the area of server administration, and down-time associated with virii, patches and other security issues, is in fact lower. ergo microsoft's focus on security and providing 'enhanced' command-line tools for server administration.

three: they (redmond) know just how long it takes a suit to be completed. this whole series of events figures into some long-range plan. what, i don't know. remember though, this court date for the start of the suit is after the release of longhorn. my bet is that there will be a slew of patches and other enforced upgrades between now and then to change the balance. not in the home, where microsoft is feeling threatened, but in the corporate world, where they are quite seriously running scared.

Someone should infiltrate. Either get the job so you can try to work within their system and convince your coworkers to behave ethically, or get in there and see how long you can keep the job while you royally undermine the company's business.

I beleive the SCO case is just like two bickering children. ("You stole my code! What code? That code! I did not! Yes you did! Wel prove it! I'm telling mommy! Well I'll tell daddy!") I think we are now in the running to mommy and daddy stage. It's the time that the stakes are risen and neighter party can emerge victorious. What is left is the question of who looses the least. Damned shame.

I as an interested outsider can do two things: laugh my ass off or argyly ignore all post concerning SCO. Since I am finding it more and more difficult to do the first I will shut up now and have me mod -1 now...

I feel soo bad, considering that I just ordered about 2K of licensing upgrades from a SCO distributor for a client yesterday.:(

If it wasn't for a proprietary set of apps, Linux + SCO bin emu was looking very good. I even had a chance to test this scenario, but encountered some serious issues.

This just proves that, like any other commercial OS, if a company adopts a commercial OS, and their production apps are taylored to that environment, the companies are just locked-in, wether they like it or not.

Is it me, or is this SCO thing looking more and more like a bad parody of a wrestling match??!!

"And, in the left corner, Red Hat is entering the ring, with his trademarked legal fund spandex and red fedora! SuSE is standing by, ready to lend a helping hand to his wrestling partner, while SCO's partner-in-crime, Microsoft is screaming 'HURT HIM!, HURT HIM!' to Darl McBride... But wait! Oh my Gosh! Red Hat has started a double-nuclear-powered screwdriver on both Darl McBride legs!! Wait!! Microsoft is trying to bite Red Hat butt while being severely pounded by 'Mein licenz ist GPL' SuSE!! It's a four way fight, people!"

Aaaaah... Saturday night wrestling... (lick lips in anticipation)...

Let's just hope that the good guys win! 10 to 1 on the little guy with the red hat!;-)

So, let's see. The case may not ultimately be decided until 2006 or later.

The case applies to kernel version 2.4 or later. If you're using 2.2, you're okay. Right?

In order to hedge one's bets, maybe a distinct fork of 2.2 is called for? If we want to be utterly over-the-top paranoid, we need to make sure that if we're called upon to roll back to 2.2, we can do that, even four years from now. Which means we need to make sure device drivers written for new hardware up until then can be made to work with the 2.2-series kernel architecture.

It'd also be good if distributions continued to give the option to use a 2.2-series kernel up until this is resolved. The current stable Debian distribution does; I hope the next two or three do as well.

Something that we need more of in the Free Software community is cohesion. We need to work together and support each other if we're going to improve technology for everyone and beat down predators like Microsoft. SCO is getting Red Hat and SuSE to work together, despite the fact that they are competitors. Everyone is rallying together against SCO. The common enemy makes us united. If that feeling of unity continues past the point where we have beaten SCO, the world will be better.

It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or wrong because Linux has been permanently harmed by the allegations SCO has made. I count at least 3 ways.

First, SCO has opened the flood gates for similar litigation. You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source. Not just Linux but all of userspace, applications, libraries, the lot. It's going to be a gold rush with Linux as the grand prize.

Second, the media attention over "indemnity". The closed source vendors are gleefully telling any journalist who will listen: "when you buy closed source we will indemnify you against litigation, when you use open source there is no indemnity". That's a significant blow against open source. I can already see every PHB in the whole damn world reconsidering their plans to deploy Linux because of the fear of lawsuits. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd say that this was the real reason behind SCOs actions; somebody wanted a noisy and public demonstration that Linux is "risky".

Third, this is the beginning of the end for all corporate support. The growth of open source really exploded once companies took an interest. Not just the kernel but also userspace (OO.org, Mozilla) and infrastructure (GNOME, KDE) and harder concepts like marketting and packaging and sales. Linux went from "that hobbyist thing" to something much more because PHBs figured that if IBM/SGI/HP/Sun are treating it seriously then maybe there was something worth looking at. But can you imagine the CEOs approving Linux development now? Certainly not when Linux development leads to lawsuits from trumped up nothings like SCO. Large companies are slow to react but I predict within 18 months there will be a huge drop in corporate Linux support.

Linux is hurt by these actions. Right or wrong. True or false. None of that matters. I've seen the needle. The damage is done.

I was curious to see if any stock holders were cashing in on SCO's inflated stock price. Check out the following link which details the last month. Not alot of huge transactions, maybe their really think their cashcow vision will come true?
Yahoo Insider Trades [yahoo.com]

why do companies release needless papers stating their position on stupid things such as this, for once i wanna see a company release a press statment to a company pulling crap like SCO that says "Get fucked." what more do you need to say? seriously i'm not trying to start a flame war here, think about it, whats the most simple way to deal with SCO right now? sometimes you need a simple message for simple minded people.

Does anybody have a copy of SCO Linux from after Feb 2003 (that they haven't already burned)? an install ISO would be best. I'd like to have a copy of SCO Linux running on one of my boxes before I call them to talk about their new license scheme.

Sources would be good too (I guess I could always load an update kernel binary and source from their website)

Hello dear friend and greetings from sunny Nigeria.Please forgive me this intrusion, but your name was forwarded to me as a person I can trust. My name is Dr. Mombutu and I am the CEO of SCO for Nigeria. As you are probably aware SCO is now involved in a lawsuit which will undoubtedly result in a multi million dollar settlement as every user of devil spawn Linux will be ordered to pay money that is being owned to SCO as a result of copyright infringement. According to careful estimates this would result in a sum of $47.8 million US Dollars being deposited in SCO's accounts over the period of next 2 (two) years. I would like to offer you 10% (ten percent) of the entire $47.8 million if you help us in the legal fight against Linux. Your contribution will only have to amount to US$ 699 if you have a uniprocessor machine running Linux, US$1149 for a dual processor machine US$2499 for quad and US$4999 for a eight cCPU machine. Each additional single CPU will be $749, while a promotional licence fee for embedded devices is $32 per device. I personally guarantee that 10% of the entire $47.8 million will be deposited into the account of your choice as soon as the lawsuit is completed. Please send cash, certified cheque or money order to

According to a letter to Szulik that was attached to the announcement, SCO "will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint." McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

> McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

Conspiracy? What the flying-a-747-through-a-Krispy-Kreme fuck?

If they cross the line from bizarre and groundless civil claims into even more bizarre and groundless criminal claims, then all bets are off. I got yer conspiracy right here, and it has to do with issuing press releases in order to manipulate the price of securities.

Yes you do on the same grounds SCO are saying you may be breaking the law with a linux kernel that has their ip, you now have a binary only license that contains non SCO ip protected by the GPL so you effectively bought a license that knowingly infringes on other people's ip and they can sue SCO for distributing it. As if you are liable or not you shouldn't have been liable for SCO's ip in the linux distribution you used so you never needed the license. You did not violate SCO's ip if it is in the linux kernel the perosn or persons whom supposedly placed the code there did, hence the suit against IBM and not against any Linux distribution and certainly not against any Linux users. You just wasted some money for something that was not your liability.

But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.

I repeat SCO does not have a right to license a binary only linux kernel if their IP is in it or not because they do not own the IP of the whole kernel only by their own admission part of it. Without supplying you the full source code upon request.

At least that is my take on it.Any GPL advocates or kernel contributors want to enlighten the debate further for this is a key issue I would like to see more clarification and discussion on.

It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law.
I'm not sure if this comment is tongue in cheek, but a large company (for whom Linux only represents a small percentage of their install base), might consider paying up to remove any potential or perceived liability. Dirty tactics by SCO, but i'd guess in most situations, it's easier to pay the $700 rather than taking on an unlimited liability in terms of future costs.

Normally one buys stock in hopes that it will go up. "Shorting" a stock is agreeing to purchase stock at a future date in hopes it will go down.

In a nutshell, it's the reverse of a "normal" stock trade... you actually SELL first, THEN buy later.

ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have

I think you're full of it. SCO's refusal to identify the alleged offending code is what is preventing any corrective action. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this will prevent them from making any claims based on the duration of the infringement.

...except that the end users didn't steal anything, so have no need for a SCO licence.

To improve (slightly) your piss-poor analogy, it would be like someone stealing a car from a taxi firm and giving lifts to people. When the thief is caught, those lucky enough to have got a lift wouldn't then get charged retrospective taxi fares - especially not at the extortionate rate this taxi firm feels like!

Any successful action by SCO would be against IBM. If that occurs, they will get damages from IBM, and anyone using Linux can then be required to stop using the offending code, or licence it, but not until.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

So why is SCO treatening to sue me? I didn't steal anything, I bought a product from a distributor and at the time I did not have a probable indication of parts of the product being stolen. How am I liable for this supposed theft?

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

While you are correct, it is up to the courts to decide what damages to award, if any. SCO estimates the damages at 3 billion, but I'm sure a court would not agree. You see, a company must show that it tried to mitigate the damages as much as possible. Apparently, the alleged code in Linux is so damaging to SCO that they don't want it removed! Also, up until a few months ago SCO was selling Linux for money. Hard to say that Linux damaged SCO's business when they were making money off it. They also continue to distribute the code themselves to this day. Based on this utter lack of failure to mitigate any supposed damages, the damages could just be an order to remove the code. Besides, since when will Linux users have to pay damages? If anyone pays, it will be those who inserted the code, not those who used it in good faith.

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now. That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

How exactly is this insightful?

His analogy is way off base. He compares knowingly comitting theft, to unknowingly using code that was distributed in breach of contract.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

Doesn't this line along give away the post as a troll? There's no end of story. Even if SCO wins the case against IBM, there's nothing saying the will be able to collect damages from anyone else, especially since they have refused to disclose the infringing code. (They were knowingly adding to the damages through their own actions.) Heck, despite what SCO says, it seems the only suit they have filed is about their contract with IBM. Even if IBM did break this contract, it doesn't mean CO owns the copyright to the code.

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

Except that SCO themselves claims that they knew back in 2001 that their IP was allegedly in the Linux source tree. Why did they wait 2 more years? So more people could use, buy, adopt, and adapt "their" code, which means more people to extort this bogus licensing from. Sorry, that sword cuts both ways.

That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

No, that would be like the law letting a rapist rape 20 women, instead of 1, so they can nail him on 20 counts of rape, instead of 1.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

End of your story, yes, however, reality goes on. The real story is that the GPL is not a EULA. If there was infringing code or IP in the code I was given, which was transferred with the GPL, and no other exclusions or contracts that CLEARLY state that there is IP in the code I've received, I am not guilty of copyright infringement. Got that? Repeat it slowly.

Also, if IBM writes code on their own, which works with the SysV source tree that they bought a license to from SCO, IBM owns the copyright to that code that IBM created, NOT SCO. You can't claim copyright on someone else's copyrighted code. That's not how the law works.

In any case, I do not owe SCO anything for my dozens of Linux boxes, nor does any other Linux user, company, or business using, deploying, distributing, modifying, or selling Linux. Period.

...this ups the ante a little bit. This means that they were KNOWINGLY distributing and selling a GPLed system with IP that they were unwilling to license under the GPL. The moment that this occurs, they're without a license, per the terms of the GPL, to distribute or make derivative works. This means they're guilty of some 18+ months of IP infringement on everyone else that has contributed substantive portions of the Kernel, Red Hat and SuSE included. There is no way in HELL that a court is going to gi

Suse & co have a fine line to walk with United Linux. Generally, to create such a product there are "cease-fire" and cross-license aggrements put into place at the start. Being as the "linux" that SCO sells was directly derived from Suse code [and file system layouts, UI, and other SuSe trade secrets..all that you can have in Linux], Suse would have some pretty good protection for it's version of Linux to be cleared by SCO...they don't really want to mess that up.

also, the agreement provides another establishment that SCO had [or should have had] due dilegence in the knowladge of the contents of the linux kernel and other supporting code...They engaged actively and willingly in cross-licensing the technology from/to other Linux distros! McBride has already hinted that SCO will try to get out of that contract or that it's worthless to the lawsuits...Suse will beg to differ.